Paleo, anyone?

freerange

Kind of contradicting yourself there aren't you? First you say “diet plays a role in everything” then you say that claiming diet can cure Parkinson’s is laughable???? I don’t understand?

No, not really. Cigarettes + coffee are correlated to preventing Parkinson's, for example. For the sake of illustration, let's pretend that's true. Let's pretend cigarettes prevent Parkinson's.

Do you think prevention = cure?

Furthermore, just because diet plays a role in everything doesn't mean GRAINS plays a role in everything, or any specific aspect of diet plays a role in anything.

Strictly speaking, no, prevention and cure are not the same. Cure only happens after you have contracted something.

mynameisuntz

Strictly speaking, no, prevention and cure are not the same. Cure only happens after you have contracted something.

Precisely. Saying that a certain diet prevents Parkinson's is a billion times different than saying it cures Parkinson's given the nature of a neurodegenerative disease.

Nutrition has a role in lots of things, and just because it may have a role in the prevention of something (like dark chocolate) does not mean it has a role in curing something once it's already there.

freerange

DO you claim that single case study was a lie?

I never saw the official case study.

An intentional lie? No. Is it possible that the diagnosis was merely off? Yeah, very possible. What measures were taken to make that diagnosis? Is it possible that a paleo diet could cure symptoms of Parkinson's? I won't rule it out. But considering I've researched the topic extensively (again, making a career in this, and patients with PD would be a major group), there's no way I can believe that a diet that merely removes grains/legumes will cure a neurodegenerative disorder for more than .0001% of the population.

Dark chocolate has neuroprotective effects. Guess how useful it is once the neurodegeneration has already started?

You wouldn’t rule it out? But it’s laughable when Wolff said it? I don’t know what Wolff said or didn’t, I’m not familiar with the article you are referring to. But I will go with what you have said, if he said it “cures” Parkinson I have to be skeptical too, but if he said something along the lines of, based on this one study the paleo diet shows promise to reduce, eliminate or slow PD, well that would be different than what you have lead us to believe. And I would be inclined to go along with it.

freerange

And speaking of correlation's, isn’t that the boogyman you have been claiming we use?

Isn't "what" the boogeyman?

[/quote]

Correlations. All the "evidence" you provided is not based in any scientific study, only correlation, people ate grains while this happened, so, if I can't say people didn't eat grains and this happened, you can't do the reverse,,,,,, right?

mynameisuntz

You wouldn’t rule it out? But it’s laughable when Wolff said it? I don’t know what Wolff said or didn’t, I’m not familiar with the article you are referring to. But I will go with what you have said, if he said it “cures” Parkinson I have to be skeptical too, but if he said something along the lines of, based on this one study the paleo diet shows promise to reduce, eliminate or slow PD, well that would be different than what you have lead us to believe. And I would be inclined to go along with it.

It's laughable based on the fact that he implied that conclusion due to a single case study and nothing more. THAT is what's laughable.

He didn't outright say it will cure PD, if I remember correctly (this is from a video presentation where he was giving a lecture to a class). But he made some serious, serious implications that made my neuroscience major tingle.

Eliminating PD would mean curing. The semantics don't hide the fact that they are the same conclusion. I'd find it laughable even if he said it shows promise to reduce or slow PD, as slowing a neurodegenerative disease is also extremely difficult and often unsuccessful. Especially when he's basing it all on a single case study.

Teemo

Correlations. All the "evidence" you provided is not based in any scientific study, only correlation, people ate grains while this happened, so, if I can't say people didn't eat grains and this happened, you can't do the reverse,,,,,, right?

Oh, yeah. Correlations are nonsense and have no place in debate about science support for paleo OR non-paleo.

But my post was made in response to someone who used correlations to support paleo and not meant to be taken seriously. It was a joke because of how ridiculous correlations can be.

Edit: Or rather, correlations have their place but should never be cited for definitive cause-effect.

freerange

He didn't outright say it will cure PD, if I remember correctly (this is from a video presentation where he was giving a lecture to a class). But he made some serious, serious implications that made my neuroscience major tingle.

Well, that is different than you have been saying,,,,,,, and who has been calling to the facts and only the facts? LOL

I understand you are skeptical, and with your background I understand, but there was a time when it was just as laughable that scurvy was caused by diet, that low pregancy rates by rich Japanese was do to polished rice, that,,,,,, well you get the idea. I read a story by a MD, (I think he was a MD, maybe a chiropractor) that had type 1 diabetes, and after going Primal as able to “cure” himself, yes N=1, but in his case, as reported by him, it worked, laughable, I wouldn’t say so.

mynameisuntz

Well, that is different than you have been saying,,,,,,, and who has been calling to the facts and only the facts? LOL

I understand you are skeptical, and with your background I understand, but there was a time when it was just as laughable that scurvy was caused by diet, that low pregancy rates by rich Japanese was do to polished rice, that,,,,,, well you get the idea. I read a story by a MD, (I think he was a MD, maybe a chiropractor) that had type 1 diabetes, and after going Primal as able to “cure” himself, yes N=1, but in his case, as reported by him, it worked, laughable, I wouldn’t say so.

Did I say that Wolf outwardly claimed it cured PD? I think initially I stated that it was an implication, and after that I was being facetious (like with the cigarette + hitting head comment). Shrug.

A neurodegenerative disease is different from diabetes or scurvy, though. That's kind of the thing. To imply you can cure diabetes is different from curing a neurodegenerative disease once the degenerating process is initiated.

freerange

Correlations. All the "evidence" you provided is not based in any scientific study, only correlation, people ate grains while this happened, so, if I can't say people didn't eat grains and this happened, you can't do the reverse,,,,,, right?

Oh, yeah. Correlations are nonsense and have no place in debate about science support for paleo OR non-paleo.

But my post was made in response to someone who used correlations to support paleo and not meant to be taken seriously. It was a joke because of how ridiculous correlations can be.

Edit: Or rather, correlations have their place but should never be cited for definitive cause-effect.

You and untz made it a scientific “method” debate, not us. Correlation is science, it’s used all the time to develop theory and hypothesis, and when you add up all the “evidence” it makes sense to many of us.

It’s been fun, got yo hit the sack so I can get up early and eat meat and eggs for breakfast.

Teemo

You and untz made it a scientific “method” debate, not us. Correlation is science, it’s used all the time to develop theory and hypothesis, and when you add up all the “evidence” it makes sense to many of us.

It’s been fun, got yo hit the sack so I can get up early and eat meat and eggs for breakfast.

I try to stay out of paleo threads now but I read the post about how evolution means eating paleo is better than eating grains and I couldn't resist.

'night, enjoy your breakfast! Eggs = delicious.

larsoncd

Apparently, the ones who really follow this believe people should only eat 'wild game.' However, I very much doubt they are running after this game and kiling it themselves with handmade stone weapons! Also, why would anyone want to try to replicate the diet from a time period when the average life expectancy was 40 if you were lucky? I wouldn't ever wreak havoc on my kidneys like that diet does...

*****Right on target my friend> >> > > perfect diet to rip up your insides. .. . ****** . .. . years ago I tried atkins and was already sworn off red meat. .. then I took nutrition and found out the real cruxt of the matter, and what it does and doen't supply your body with. .. . My advice. . do some investigation. .. .

That nutrition class must have been in a government school?

You don't know what you are talking about.

freerange

You and untz made it a scientific “method” debate, not us. Correlation is science, it’s used all the time to develop theory and hypothesis, and when you add up all the “evidence” it makes sense to many of us.

It’s been fun, got yo hit the sack so I can get up early and eat meat and eggs for breakfast.

I try to stay out of paleo threads now but I read the post about how evolution means eating paleo is better than eating grains and I couldn't resist.

'night, enjoy your breakfast! Eggs = delicious.

We all read into things based on our biases. Personally I’m a Christian and don’t really buy into the whole evolution (as in we evolved from single cell water creatures) thing. BUT for those that do I think it’s more of, the evolution evidence leads them to believe this is the optimal way for humans to eat. If you believe in evolution you must admit the evidence is clear that for the vast majority of our development, humans were not grain eaters, nor did we eat dairy, or legumes. We ate meat (lean wild meat) we ate nuts, fruits, and vegetables (in season). That is how our bodies “evolved”. Now that is not to say there are many new food items that we cannot eat just because it wasn’t around 50k years ago, what it says is we know our bodies were designed to function best with these basic foods, add to that knowledge modern advancements in food preparation (fermentation, among other things) medicines, transportation, and storage and there is no reason we cannot enjoy vibrant health like no other time in our human history. And yet we are approaching if not already surpassing the lowest health in our history. (why is that?)

LaJauna

I am so sick of coming into a Paleo/low carb discussion and getting hammered with arguments about nothing. I just wanted to be able to discuss and get support with other like-minded folks. I get frustrated when trying to negotiate through all the trolls that I find myself just reading and walking away. Too bad. I like this way of eating and I was hoping for more support and less stress. Enjoy your fighting!

Teemo

If you believe in evolution you must admit the evidence is clear that for the vast majority of our development, humans were not grain eaters, nor did we eat dairy, or legumes.

No. Not even close. If you believe in evolution you must admit that the evidence is clear that for the vast majority of our EXISTENCE, humans were not grain eaters. [From 200,000-20,000 years ago]. Conceded.

If you believe in evolution, you must admit that the greatest DEVELOPMENT was made post-adoption of grains [20,000 years ago-today]. There is absolutely no merit to an argument suggesting that eating grains or not eating grains was the primary cause or even correlationally-related to human development physically and intellectually. However, if -- and that's a big IF -- you wanted to take that route the argument is against eating paleo.

And yet we are approaching if not already surpassing the lowest health in our history. (why is that?)

And what data are you basing that statement on? Certainly not life expectancy.

freerange

Our bodies and brains were already developed by the time we started eating grains, IN FACT our brain size has decreased since we started eating grains, so has our stature. It is well established that agriculture allowed us time to develop our intellect (or should I say some of us) Because until recently the vast majority of people were too busy with agriculture to develop their intelligence, it was just the chosen few.

And your strawman is misplaced, I never said our intellect was developed, I said during the vast majority of our development happened on a Paleo diet. The ability to think, and to use our brain to solve problems were developed then, which is not the same as saying our intellect was developed. Intellect is not a byproduct of our physical being, it’s more a product or nurture, not nature.

I base that statement on,,,,,,, well just visit any hospital,,, and you tell me how much heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and any number of diet related sicknesses you see. Compare that to the record of these same diet related diseases we had just 100 years ago, let alone prehistoric.

freerange

I know you will be asking so here is a link.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/a-grey-matter-of-size-brains-arent-what-they-used-to-be/story-fn5fsgyc-1226074059863

mynameisuntz

We all read into things based on our biases. Personally I’m a Christian and don’t really buy into the whole evolution (as in we evolved from single cell water creatures) thing. BUT for those that do I think it’s more of, the evolution evidence leads them to believe this is the optimal way for humans to eat. If you believe in evolution you must admit the evidence is clear that for the vast majority of our development, humans were not grain eaters, nor did we eat dairy, or legumes.

The field of biology doesn't work without evolution. Biology would not make sense if it weren't for evolution. It MUST exist or biology is meaningless.

Our bodies are highly adaptive. Just because we were eating certain things during development doesn't mean we can't eat anything else, and it doesn't mean eating other things will be detrimental to health. There's no proof in your claim that this is the optimal way to eat. It's merely an assumption.

I am so sick of coming into a Paleo/low carb discussion and getting hammered with arguments about nothing. I just wanted to be able to discuss and get support with other like-minded folks. I get frustrated when trying to negotiate through all the trolls that I find myself just reading and walking away. Too bad. I like this way of eating and I was hoping for more support and less stress. Enjoy your fighting!

Not trolling at all. We're presenting evidence, which is something you have not done for your claims. Like when you said all you have to do is eat less than 50g carbs and not worry about calories in regards to weight loss.

Still hoping to see a shred of evidence for that claim.

I base that statement on,,,,,,, well just visit any hospital,,, and you tell me how much heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and any number of diet related sicknesses you see. Compare that to the record of these same diet related diseases we had just 100 years ago, let alone prehistoric.

Yeah, how has caloric intake changed in the last 100 years? How many calories on average are people eating now compared to 100 years ago? With all the calorie-dense food that has come out in that time, how can you solely look at food source and assume that is the issue?

freerange

There's no proof in your claim that this is the optimal way to eat. It's merely an assumption.

No proof is highly different than saying “ there is no proof I will accept”, there is proof, it just doesn’t meet your level of requirement.

Yeah, how has caloric intake changed in the last 100 years? How many calories on average are people eating now compared to 100 years ago? With all the calorie-dense food that has come out in that time, how can you solely look at food source and assume that is the issue?

And caloric intake could be a part of the equation too. I never said, and as far as I know, no one has ever said, food source is the sole issue. Again stop making up my arguments to support your counter claims.

mynameisuntz

No proof is highly different than saying “ there is no proof I will accept”, there is proof, it just doesn’t meet your level of requirement.

Proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.

Again, based on the definition of proof, you do not have any for your claim. Your ideas of evolution and humans eating this food while evolving is not proof because it does not establish a truth but rather formulates your opinion. Humans are highly, highly adaptable and as such have the capability to evolve to eat things like dairy, legumes, and whole grains over the course of the last 20,000 years. That's evident in the fact that populations that were once lactose in tolerance, for example, can become tolerant over a few generations.

And caloric intake could be a part of the equation too. I never said, and as far as I know, no one has ever said, food source is the sole issue. Again stop making up my arguments to support your counter claims.

I'm not making anything up. That is a message you are implying whether you believe it or not. You are implying that the food sources are one of the main culprits of things like diabetes or insulin resistance or CVD.

Find me people who have type II diabetes or insulin resistance or CVD without predisposition who have a healthy body fat percentage and still eat grains/legumes/dairy. I guarantee those people don't exist in statistically significant numbers.

mynameisnutz

Find me people who have type II diabetes or insulin resistance or CVD without predisposition who have a healthy body fat percentage and still eat grains/legumes/dairy. I guarantee those people don't exist in statistically significant numbers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517121824.htm

Bam, mummified Egyptian princesses. Ignore the part of the article about parasitic infections.